Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507675 --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-09 13:47:14 EDT --- I agree that this is most likely acceptable content, though I'll keep FE-Legal in place and won't approve until that gets acked. However, we're already shipping this data in our release branches, it's not really small and has a completely different release cycle, so splitting it out makes sense in any case. Packaging-wise, this is trivial and looks fine. Just waiting for FE-Legal clearance. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 890dbadf44aee07999c050fcbe0c4ea8b32fba0e8b573c439dd7de8476a1a660 poppler-data-0.2.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: poppler-data = 0.2.1-1.fc12 = (none) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * seems acceptable content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review